It doesn’t take
an extremely observant person to notice all of the zombie film that have
flooded theaters and rental shelves since Danny Boyle’s successful re-imagining
of an apocalyptic, zombie-like virus. Shortly afterward Zack Snyder (300)
brought the running zombies to America with his remake of the second in George
A. Romero’s legendary zombie series, which he returned to quickly afterward
with Land of the Dead and more recently with Diary of the Dead. The question
is, why did Romero choose this time to make his zombie comeback?

Sure, they were already popular
again, but the reason they became popular when in the 1980s nobody seemed
interested is somewhat of a mystery. Since zombie films are often read as
apocalyptic, and with The Night of the Living Dead (1968) seeming to reference
to the Vietnam War, it seems to make sense that zombie films would become
popular while we are at war and living in an apocalyptic world. With all of the
stress and anxiety brought on by the these films, it is a relief to see them
begin to gain some humor and enjoyment in recent reflections on the zombie
genre. Once again our trend seems to follow the British horror films, oddly
enough, who also added humor to the genre with Shaun of the Dead.

Zombie Strippers makes no attempt to
hide the social and political commentary, humorously giving a drastic future in
which George W. Bush has become a dictator in the United
States, with many wars raging overseas and nudity illegal
in the United States.
Whereas zombies in many past films have come from unknown origins, we are told
directly on a news program that the zombies are being created to become
soldiers in the many wars. As always happens, the virus gets out. A group of
soldiers are sent into the research lab to kill all of the zombies, but when
one of them is bitten he runs away to save himself. When he accidentally
stumbles into an illegal underground strip club and unwittingly gives the virus
to the strippers.

When the star stripper, Kat (Jenna
Jameson), is bitten by the zombie soldier, the club owner, Ian (Robert
Englund), is surprised to see her get back up. Rather than resort to simply
feeding off of flesh, the female zombies in this film retain the ability to
remember what they were trained to do, as the soldier zombies are meant to, so
Kat immediately begins stripping again. When the small club begins benefiting
from the zombie stripping, the other strippers begin offering themselves to be
bitten in order to become popular at the club. The only downside to the
strippers is that they resort to biting when giving private lap-dances and the
male zombies are not nearly as controlled once infected.

Writer/director Jay Lee wrote a
clever script with strippers discussing philosophy in relation to the
transformation of the strippers. At times Lee’s reach extends beyond his grasp,
especially when the actresses playing the strippers stumble over the words of
dialogue. Many are too committed to their roles while others remain campy
through the entire film. Surprisingly Jameson seems to be the one able to stay
campy and humorous without losing the persona she is playing. It seems strange
that the porn star in the film would be the most natural, but I suppose she has
enough experience in front of a camera to feel comfortable. Roxy Saint of the
goth rock band Roxy Saint and the Blackouts is also one of the strippers, but
her acting is slightly less convincing as a goth stripper. You would think she
should be a natural. The doorman is also played by Ultimate Fighting Champion
Tito Ortiz, ensuring that a large number of the cast has a recognizable name,
even if it is in another field of entertainment. Fortunately, the film is
soaked in enough graphic violence and nudity used for humor and arousal to
distract from the many errors in the clever B-film.

Mike White has a specific style of writing that somehow
manages to poke fun without losing touch with reality. The result is often a
melancholy sense of humor, sometimes dark but honest above all else. Year of
the Dog marks White’s turn at directing his own script, though the scripts he
has written for others have been fantastic. White uses the same sensibilities
that have often been applied to his other scripts by other directors, with many
similarities to Chuck and Buck in terms of aesthetics. What is even more
impressive is the entourage of fantastic actors willing to be in the film.
Molly Shannon alone gives such a dedicated and honest portrayal of a sincerely
lonely woman, setting aside all slapstick and humor that she is normally known
for. This is a comparable film with Punch-Drunk Love in terms of the
opportunity it offered Adam Sandler. Granted Year of the Dog is not to be held
to the same standards, especially considering the large ensemble films Paul
Thomas Anderson had already made, but Shannon
is certainly as dedicated to playing the role completely straight.

Peggy (Molly Shannon) appears to be a fairly content person
in her life, happy to go about her business at work and with her friends as
long as she has her dog Pencil to return home to. Even as her brother and
sister-in-law, who is played by a wonderfully anal Laura Dern, flaunt their
children in her face Peggy doesn’t even seem to mind being single. Pencil is a
companion to her day and night, even sleeping beside her. We see their routine
enough to know that when Pencil leaves the bed to explore outside one evening
it can only end badly for him. Peggy is crushed by the loss of her only
companion and her mood is not elevated by friends, family or work. At the same
time she finds that the death of her dog brings her all sorts of new
opportunities.

When searching for her dog Peggy bothers the man living next
door (John C. Reilly), who asks her on a date afterwards. Not having Pencil to
hold her back anymore Peggy finds herself in new situations, dating with all of
the quirks that come attached. Another man brought into Peggy’s life by the
incident when she receives a call to adopt a dog from a worker (Peter
Sarsgaard) who was there when Pencil was brought in. Peggy develops a crush and
takes the hobby of getting homes for dogs as well as changing her lifestyle to
vegan. Every choice she makes is meant to lead to satisfaction and happiness
but ultimately people disappoint her.

I never
much cared for Woody Allen when I first discovered his films. I must have been
around the age of 15. It was at this time that I was assembling my concept of a
romantic love, mostly through the endless absorption of idealistic
presentations in film romance. I sought out the best and most popular romances
that the world of film had to offer, in search of my own map for a love life.
When I reached Annie Hall (1977), I
found most of Allen’s humor too cynical for the innocent ideal of my youth. At
the age of 30, a viewing of Annie Hall brought a wonderfully different film
experience.

There were two things that I recall
liking in the early Allen films that I watched at in my teens. The first was
the line in his aforementioned classic about masturbation being “sex with
someone I love.” As I said, I was fifteen. The second thing which won me over
to the filmmaker on some small level was within the storyline of Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989). Allen’s
character, Cliff Stern, is a documentary filmmaker with the same neurotic and
cynical attitude about love which turned me away from Alvy Singer, and yet it
was within this film that I began to appreciate the Woody Allen personas. This
is completely due to the fact that Cliff owns only one 16mm print, and that
film is Singin’ in the Rain (1952),
and the passionate way he talks about watching the beloved musical. It is
impossible to be a complete cynical and
love Singin’ in the Rain as much as
Allen clearly does.

A shared love of the same
pop-culture piece of art has a way of bringing people together. When you first
start dating someone new, these are usually among the first questions asked
during the ‘getting-to-know-you’ portion of the relationship. What is your
favorite book? What kind of music do you listen to? What are your favorite
movies? Even if we have little else in common, this shared love of the same
things can bridge that gap. Musicals tend to have the increased emotional
attachment, due to the manner in which music seems to speak volumes in
sentimentality. Indeed, each of the films on my list are movies connected and
intertwined with memories of my youth and my life thus far. Not one of these
films has been watched just once, or even just a couple of times, but are films
which I have already carried with me. There are no storm clouds in my life
which can’t be momentarily cleared away by a little Singin’ in the Rain.

Joe Piscopo and Paul Sorvino in How Sweet It Is

This past weekend, Brian Herzlinger
released his original comedy musical, How Sweet It Is. Discussing classic
musical influences on his modern musical, Brian inspired me to think about my
personal favorites. This may be the easiest list I have compiled, because all I
have done is chosen the films I have watched since childhood without ever
finding them tiresome. It isn’t the most unique list, but sentimentality has no
need for originality.

I have seen
Easter Parade at least twenty times. Probably closer to 30. My family watches
it every Easter, and I even once asked to view it in a class about film
musicals in grad school. Despite the countless times I was forced to endure the
pastel and lace aspects as the storyline as an unwilling teen, I never once
tired of watching Fred Astaire. Though this isn’t my favorite of his films, the
pairing with Judy Garland is magic and the toy shop scene remains among my
favorite of Astaire’s routines.

The tagline
for Irving Berlin’s musical was “The Happiest Musical Ever Made,” and it is
true that much of the film is just light entertainment. Many of the musical
numbers are just creative performances onstage, which provide entertainment and
filler for the film. The storyline is simple, similar to the plot of My Fair
Lady with a show business twist. This is mostly just a film about performances,
and that is more than enough with these entertainers.

4. Guys and Dolls (1955)

Marlon
Brando never struck me as the type to be in a musical, but that is exactly what
the musical Guys and Dolls needs. It
needed tough looking actors unlikely to be seen singing and dancing. The
addition of Frank Sinatra makes it a killer combination and one of the best
musicals to ever come out of Hollywood.
This film was adapted from the Broadway musical and it features some of the same
cast. Sky Masterson (Brando) and Nathan Detroit (Sinatra) will bet on anything
when they are out of the racetracks. When trying to get some quick cash, Nathan
bets that sky can’t seduce the new missionary (Jean Simmons) that just moved
into the neighborhood. As often happens in the movies, they fall in love and
all ends in a song.

The
production and the casting choices are almost as fascinating as the film
itself, especially the various stories behind the rivalry Sinatra and Brando
had on set. There was some contention over the fact that non-singing actor
Brando was given the larger role in the film, one which Sinatra much preferred
to the one he was given despite the extra title song added for his presence in
the film. Brando’s response was practical jokes, such as intentionally flubbing
lines to ensure repeat takes of uncomfortable scenes. However difficult it was
to cast this film, and however tense the production was, the results are
fantastic. Who cares that Brando’s vocals for the musical numbers needed to be
spliced together from several different takes? Somehow it worked out, and
Sinatra moved on by performing “Luck Be a Lady” onstage for years to come. Now
we think of him when we hear that song, not Brando.

3. The Wizard of Oz (1939)

This is one of the most memorable
films of all time, and it would be difficult for anyone to claim that they made
it through their childhood without seeing it on television at least once. Not
only has The Wizard of Oz claimed a home in the hearts of many for generation
after generation, but it has also been given a place in film history. Growing
up, it was an event if we turned the television on and discovered that The
Wizard of Oz was playing. Even though it was available on VHS, there was
something special about knowing this film was a constant. Because of the high
number of times it appears on television, studies have shown that this is the
highest watched film in history.

Because of
this, I imagine most everyone is familiar with the story and all of the wonders
it has to offer. This is another film with a great deal of drama within the
production, and that can be fascinating as well. Personally, I just love this
film for purely nostalgic reasons. It is far from a favorite film of mine, but
watching it brings me back to childhood on some small level. I never saw the
new Oz film. Walt Disney was furious when MGM had the rights to the beloved
book series, and the Disney studio has made several sequels and sub-par
rip-offs ever since. I’m sure there is some merit to the new Oz film, but
nothing will ever compare to the classic.

2. West Side Story (1961)

West Side Story was the first musical I
saw onstage, and immediately following it became the first musical I saw on
film. The dance turned into fight immediately made an impression, as did the
fantastic songs which fill the musical score by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by
Stephen Soundheim. Winner of 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, this
film version of the classic musical is one of those rare films which are as
good as they are memorable.

Taking
Romeo and Juliet and updating it to 1950s New
York City with music, West Side Story is about the forbidden love between two members of
rival gangs. The Jets are a group of white thugs and The Sharks are the Puerto
Rican gang members in the neighborhood, and both constantly fight each other.
When one of the Jets (Richard Beymer) falls in love with one of the Sharks
(Natalie Wood), they think that they can find a way to be together, but the
tragedy of the rivalry takes over. This colorful winner of Best Cinematography,
Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design is a vibrant film, and also one with
an emotional punch within the storyline.

1. Singin’ In the Rain (1952)

Singin’ in the Rain follows the advent
of sound in motion pictures, and the rippling effects it had in Hollywood, complete with a
reenactment of the most memorable moment of The
Jazz Singer (1927). Gene Kelly stars as a silent film star who is forced to
reinvent himself when sound becomes a demanding necessity for modern audiences.
There are many scenes showing an accurate and comical portrayal of the switch
to sound filmmaking, including a particularly memorable sequence in which the
microphone is unsuccessfully hidden in numerous locations on set.

The film within the film is a mess
in test screenings, mostly because of the awful sound, including a leading
actress with a shrill and uncivilized voice that doesn’t match the audience’s
expectations after seeing her elegant beauty in countless silent films. These
were problems that were actually dealt with in the early days of sound, with
countless foreign actors suddenly out of work because of their troublesome
accents. Singin’ in the Rain utilizes
this chapter in film history to advance the storyline, advancing the plot
towards a solution that turns the flop into a successful musical, with
up-and-coming actress Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) lending her voice to dub
over the voice of irritating film starlet Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen).

As well as Kelly’s signature
over-the-top fantasy finale number, Singin’ in the Rain has some fantastic
smaller bits as well. I have always loved “Make ‘Em Laugh,” which Donald
O’Conner so enthusiastically performs in the role of Cosmo Brown. And there is
no denying the simple elegant spectacle of the title number. Who hasn’t hummed
that tune walking down a rainy street filled with puddles? Seriously, I can’t
be the only one.

Wolverine is an
extremely popular comic book character. As a child I never read X-Men, but
Wolverine was still a favorite of mine. The reason was because of how simply
awesome a single image of the character could look. This has nothing to do with
the story, and in watching the X-Men Origins: Wolverine film, it occurs to me
that the single image is always better when this character is concerned. Many
might have hopes that Wolverine would redeem the mess that was X-Men: The Last Stand,
but this film is created by the same Hugh Jackman production company, Seed
Production. For this reason alone, Wolverine and X3 have more in common than
the first two films.

Perhaps
Wolverine is more complex or interesting in the comics, but in this film he
quickly becomes dull. Wolverine’s very indestructibility makes each battle
pointless, especially when characters are involved that are certain to survive.
The whole point of the movie becomes lost as we know the inevitable outcome of
the prequel. All we discover is a weak explanation for how Wolverine lost his
memory at the beginning of X-Men. The origins of his metal blades could be
explained in the trailer, and his actual indestructible nature is never
clarified beyond what was known in the three X-Men films.

The film
follows the indestructible half-brothers, each with unique retractable claws.
Logan and Victor Creed are apparently immortal, though they grow to a manly
Hugh Jackman and beefed up Liev Schreiber before they stop aging. These aspects
aren’t explained, but their nature leads them to war. Unable to die, they fight
in each American war until Vietnam,
when they become disillusioned and corrupted. They are recruited by William
Stryker (Danny Huston) to join a private army of mutants, but eventually the
brothers part ways with a difference in beliefs.

Rather than
develop the conflict between these two brothers, this film spends more time
indulging fans with special mutant appearances. Gambit makes an appearance
after being cut from two of the other X-Men films, and a number of other
characters from another generation of X-Men appear. There are numerous action
sequences and a mad-villain plan to take over the world (or something like
that), but the action is the only plot point that matters.

This past weekend I sat down with
three comedic talents from the upcoming film, Rapture-Palooza; Craig Robinson,
Rob Corddry, and Rob Huebel. The press junket was held at a hotel, as they
often are. This time it was in Beverly
Hills on a Sunday, so I arrived early without the
city’s usual traffic to slow me down. They had the usual spread of food out for
the press, including this particular hotel’s signature imitation of a Hostess
ho-ho. I refrained, going for the artesian imported bottled water instead.

The interviews were to be held in
hotel room which had tables and chairs in place of beds. Waiting for the talent
to arrive, I found myself needing to use the facilities, releasing that fancy
water from the oblong-shaped bottle back out to sea. As luck would have it, I
was exiting the restroom at the same moment that Corddry was entering the room.
As is the case in nearly every hotel I have ever been in, the restroom is
located near the room’s only entrance, so Corddry and I had an awkward shuffle.
As we sat down, Corddry asked how long I had been in the restroom. I looked at
him with complete seriousness and responded, “I’ve been in there since last
night. This is my hotel room. I have no idea what is going on.”

There was a great deal of joking when
I talked to these three guys. Robinson even broke into a little impromptu
singing when discussing his improvised vocal riffs in the film, but there was a
serious aspect to the interviews as well. The film is a comedy, but one which
was filmed during a time that some seriously believed there was a possibility
it would soon come true. It is a film about the coming of the end of times, and
the production took place during the May 21st predictions of 2011.
On the evening before, director Paul Middleditch made an announcement to his
cast and crew, saying “if I don’t see you on Monday, obviously they were
right.”

﻿

It is no secret that when Hollywood finds something
that works, there are bound to be a dozen duplicates following. The success of
a product results in an increase of production; this is just simply supply and
demand, but it begs a larger question. Why is it popular in the first place? In
the past decade there have been films about the end of the world within the
framework of many different sub-genres. Nearly every monster of horror movies
has resulted in the destruction of civilization. This year alone has several
science fiction films which deal with a post-apocalyptic Earth.

James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, and Danny McBride in This Is the End (2013)

Rob Corddry has been in three
post-apocalyptic comedies recently, including last year’s Seeking a Friend at
the End of the World and the zombie romance, Warm Bodies. Craig Robinson has
two out this year. As Corddry puts it, “We as a people are obsessed with our
own mortality.” But how is it that this obsession has become so humorous in the
past year? Rob Huebel informed me with deadpan expression that he believes the
end of the world is “probably going to happen this year.” Could he be right? Or
is there another explanation for this sudden shift into apocalyptic comedy.

Rob Corddry as a zombie in Warm Bodies

In Hollywood Genre:Formulas, Filmmaking, and the StudioSystem, Thomas Schatz proves that film genres are both a ‘static’
and ‘dynamic’ system. What this simply means is that there are elements of
films, of all genres and sub-genres, which will always remain the same as long
as those particular films continue to be made. Conversely, there are aspects of
a genre which are forever in flux.

Schatz agrees with a “lifespan” of genres as
stated by Henri Focillon in The Life of
Forms in Art. This lifespan plays out in stages after the genre first
appears in films. The first is “an experimental
stage, during which the conventions are isolated and established”.The
second stage, the classic stage, is
described by Schatz as a time when the conventions are “mutually understood by
artist and audience”. These are the films that conform to the expectations from
the experimental stage. The third
stage is the age of refinement,
“during which certain formal and stylistic details embellish the form”. During
this stage, the films are becoming more self-aware. Style replaces substance,
as the substance becomes more familiar to audiences. Reviews for Oblivion have praised the visual
appearance of the sci-fi apocalypse blockbuster, while the film’s plot seems a
hodgepodge of many similar films.

Book of Eli

The final stage is a baroque stage, “when the form and its
embellishments are accented to the point where they themselves become the
‘substance or ‘content’ of the work. These are the films that can only exist
with the knowledge of previous genre patterns. This is where the apocalyptic
comedies seem to be coming in recently. When the initial wave of apocalypse
films popped up, the emphasis was on the fear and hopelessness of the
situation. In films such as The Road,
Book of Eli and countless zombie
films, the future looked bleak and the end of the world was no laughing matter,
but these movies work as a cathartic tool for helping society to address
specific social anxieties, making it possible for the arrival of a new wave of
films which allow us to laugh at these same fears. “Religion, and God, and the
Apocalypse is a real fascination for me,” admitted Coddry, “so it’s fun to
pepper that with F-bombs.”

﻿

Rapture-Palooza

But even the comedians can appreciate
the reason for the new wave of these films. Work is work, and as Corddry puts
it, “if you’re gonna throw a dart a movie, you’re gonna hit an end of the world
one.” Screenwriter Chris Matheson (Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure) created
a film about The Rapture in Rapture-Palooza,
but it is also in many ways a satire about the state of modern America. As
director Middleditch simply describes the film, “It’s about the Apocalypse at
the end of your driveway.”﻿

Even though the film was on a
“micro-budget” and was shot in only 18 days in Canada, there is an extremely high
amount of talent involved in the production. Corddry praises the method of
filmmaking such as this, which says “Let’s take not a lot of money and a lot of
people that will work for not a lot of money, that we know will have a report
and get them in a room to tell jokes. It seems like that’s happening more,
which I love.” This group of people includes Academy Award Nominee Anna
Kendrick (50/50, Up In the Air), John Francis Daley (“Freaks and Geeks,”
“Bones”), Ana Gasteyer (“Saturday Night Live”), Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911!”),
Paul Scheer (“The League”), John Michael Higgins (“Arrested Development”), and
Tyler Labine (“Reaper”). “I feel like there has been a trend lately,” Huebel
added, “where a lot of movies and TV shows are starting to use more
improvisers.”This is definitely one of
those films, and a collection of talent like this makes me anticipate the
deleted scenes they must have compiled for the bonus features of an upcoming
DVD and Blu-ray release.

Every year
around award season there are a slew of biopics released, because these films
more than any other seem to inspire acting nominations. The only thing that
increases the chances are music biopics, which is why there was a great deal of
talk when word got around that Joaquin Phoenix would be playing the guitar and
singing in the film based n Johnny Cash’s musical career, Walk the Line. Anyone
who knows the history of Johnny Cash may have been very excited about this
film, but I was a skeptic so soon after Ray. The similarities between the lives
of these two is astounding, but I had no urge to see the same film twice, no
matter how good the performances. Both were scarred at a young age by the loss
of a brother in tragic accidents, both struggled with drugs, and both had a
hard time remaining faithful to their wife. The difference which makes Walk the
Line a great film, is that Johnny Cash may not be the hero in his own film.
Instead it is clear that June Carter is the solid rock which Walk the Line can
rely on, which is helped a great deal by Reese Witherspoon’s performance.

Johnny Cash
tried to start his career singing gospel music, but he soon realized that his
granite voice was better served singing dark songs written about prison, even
though he had never been there himself. Walk the Line does its best to answer
questions about Cash’s career, such as the meaning behind his songs or how he
got the nickname “Man in Black”, but the film works best when it uses the power
of storytelling. There might be essential elements from the plot missing, but
because Walk the Line focuses on the romance between Johnny and June there is
obvious direction in the story. There is a clear purpose and audiences are
insured a happy conclusion. It is the same element which made another film in
the best actress category work as well. Pride and Prejudice also knew how to
make the audience want something, and then make them wait the remainder of the
film to get it. Walk the Line lets us know early on that if we care at all for
Johnny Cash, we must care for June. Then the film forces us to watch them
unable to be together just to allow the tension to build. This is great
filmmaking, whether it really happened this way or not.

As with all
films based on a musical artist, it will help a great deal if you are a fan of
the music, but Walk the Line has the ability to draw crowds that have never
heard Johnny Cash. Because of the romance element, it is possible that
audiences that hate country music may still enjoy the film. The same can not be
said about many other films of this sort. Although the music is good, and Phoenix and Witherspoon
both do a great job singing and entertaining, the real magic comes from their
performances during the private moments. Although the music is certain to push
one or both of them on stage to win an award, it was the rest of the film which
got them the nomination in the first place.

Despite the fact that this just appeared to be another generic
thriller cashing in on the latest trends, I found myself quickly won over by
the energetic and creative title sequence. It was so untraditional and fun that
I was extremely aware that I was about to watch a movie, but now I also had a
tone to watch the film with, and I was eased into an extremely enjoyable
experience. Vacancy plays out like a puzzle unraveling, starting as a seemingly
simple tale of two ordinary people, much like Hitchcock used in his films.
Hitchcock films also put these ordinary people into extraordinary situations,
and this is also the case in Vacancy, a much smarter thriller than I would have
ever imagined.

Vacancy begins with a couple driving on a deserted road at
night. Who they are, where they are coming from, and where they are going is
not told or explained at the beginning of the film, as it might in a lazier
script. Instead the film unfolds slowly, at first just giving little bits of
information by the way they act together. David (Luke Wilson) looks exhausted
and is bitter that Amy (Kate Beckinsale) has been sleeping while he drives.
During this time he took a side road which nearly always leads to trouble.
After they have car trouble they are forced to spend the evening in a motel
somewhere in the middle of the wilderness. This is the last thing that a couple
with a failing relationship wants to do, but they have no choice until the
mechanic comes back in the morning.

The motel is as awful as you can imagine a bad motel could
be, each room equipped with plenty of bugs and tasteless furniture. David and
Amy’s room also comes with the additional perks of sudden knocks on the door
leading to the room next to them. There is also phone calls which leads to even
more mysteries with the programming on their television. Vacancy begins with
the basics of horror; loud noises, using them effectively. Vacancy is a smart
film that uses the modern elements and trends of horror set in the basic plot
structure of a classic Hitchcockian thriller. After the noises from their
neighbor they have nothing to do and the television doesn’t work, so they try
the VHS tapes left on top of the VCR. All of these tapes seem to be slasher
films, all taking place in a hotel room which looks a great deal like the room
they are in.

There isn’t much to the story, other than a couple trying to
survive, so if it is twists and turns that you are hoping for you will most
definitely be disappointed. It isn’t the way the film turns out so much as how
it gets there which is what makes Vacancy fun. It is the suspense in-between
the predictable moments which allow the film to thrive. Too many movies like
this dwell far too much on the gruesome aspects of the situation rather than
the suspense and anticipation, which Vacancy has hit dead-on.